Sounds that drive you crazy

Today on the Jimmy Barrett Show:

• Sounds that drive you crazy

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:02):
Well, what we need is more common sense, the youth
common breaking down the world's nonsense.

Speaker 2 (00:12):
About how American common sense.

Speaker 1 (00:13):
Will see us through with the common sense of Houston.
I'm just pro common sense for Houston. From Houston dot com.
This is the Jimmy Barrett Show, brought to you by
viewind dot com. Now here's Jimmy Barrett.

Speaker 2 (00:31):
All right, we're gonna we're gonna talk about things that
drive you crazy today actually sounds to drive you crazy.
That's that's what we're gonna open up with this morning.
And what prompt it was our question today on the
Morning show today and kat r h I thought we'd
just going continue the conversation here in the afternoon on
a nine fifty k p r c uh. Here's a
listen of some of the things that, if don't drive

(00:54):
me crazy, can come close to driving me crazy. And
see if any of these set off your hot button.
How about the chirp of a dying battery and a
smoke detector. You know that that noise I can't even
duplicate that noise that it makes. And it starts off
doing it like once, it seems like like maybe once

(01:15):
every couple of minutes, and then the more the battery
is dying, the closer they get together. And you probably
I don't know about your house. We have probably a
dozen or more smoke detectors in the house, so you
have to you have to sit there, and some of
them are fairly close together, so you have to sit
there and try to figure out, okay, which one is it,
which one is dying, which one is making that noise,

(01:38):
and then you end up changing the wrong one and
the sound continues until you, Philly finally really find the
right one. Drives me nuts. Here's something else, And I
say this even though we are over at KTICH anyway,
we're the primary emergency alert system station. But that tone.
I can't play the tone because that would be illegal

(02:00):
to do in a non emergency. But that tone that
during eas test or activation, I mean it basically makes
my ear hair fall out. It is just in such
a high pitch. I mean, it's it's there for reason,
right to get your attention, and so it cuts through
any noise. But man, that drives me nuts. People who
smack when they eat styrofoam, rubbing on styrofoam. A cat,

(02:25):
we haven't have four a cat right as they're getting
ready to cough up a hair ball. You know that
noise that they make of that well, and gen throwing
up in general. The sound of throwing up is test
The sound alone makes me almost want to throw up myself.
So that's a couple of things. So we open it

(02:47):
up to our listeners on the morning show today on
kat r H and here are some of the sounds
if you will, that they say drive them crazy.

Speaker 3 (02:58):
Anything Michael Jackson, that damn sound of cars for kids
of that commercial.

Speaker 4 (03:09):
Skip from Webster.

Speaker 5 (03:11):
Go into your local McDonald's order of breakfast sandwich and
there's five babies screaming and crying at the top of
their lungs in Unison.

Speaker 4 (03:19):
Good morning. This is Jack from Connecticut. A sound that
drives me crazy is a sound of somebody farting at
the dinner table while you're eating dinner. But a sound
I love is Terry's voice on the radio in the morning.
Have a great day, guys.

Speaker 6 (03:33):
Jimmy, this is why from Porter. The thing that came
to my mind was unruly or misbehaving children in restaurants.
I have a few other thoughts on that matter, but
I'll just leave it at that. Y'all have a good.

Speaker 2 (03:46):
Day, bye, Well Nicks, allow me to pontificate because there's
a recurring There was a recurring theme this morning. Crying
kids came up several times during the discussion. I think
if you go to Chuck E Cheese and you are
somehow offended by the noise of a bunch of children

(04:07):
shrieking and screaming and crying and doing all the things
that little kids do, then that's kind of on you, right.
You know, when you go to like a Chuck E
Cheese or McDonald's, you know that has an indoor playground
kind of a thing, You kind of know what to expect, right,
because that's who they're attracting. That's who they're trying to
appeal to. So you are voluntarily walking in to those

(04:32):
places and subjecting yourself to it. Where it drives me
insane is if you're at a nice restaurant that is,
you know, more geared towards adults, and somebody's got their
little kid or their baby in there and they're crying
and listen, you got a right to be there with
your kid, I get that, But what you need to

(04:54):
do for the rest of us who are not there
to listen to your child cry is to take their
child out of the restaurant until you can get that
child settled down and then bring them back in. And
I find that fewer and fewer people do that. It's
because we don't spend as much time thinking about others
as we used to. You know, we only seem to
concern ourselves with ourselves. So, you know, the crying kids

(05:18):
only drive me crazy in certain circumstances. Here's some more.

Speaker 6 (05:22):
Hey, this is Mike from Magnolia.

Speaker 5 (05:24):
The sound that drives me crazy is Lena Adalgo's voice.

Speaker 2 (05:30):
Hey, Jimmy Kevin from Texas City, the sound of Maxine
Waters just talking.

Speaker 6 (05:40):
Fine.

Speaker 5 (05:42):
This one burns my butt. Is when parents allow their
kids to scream and yell in restaurants that I pay
good money to joy mine's dinner. They have not the
courtesy take those brady little kids out and pop their bottoms,
put duct table on them out, and sit him in
the chair.

Speaker 2 (06:03):
I don't know about the duct tape part. And listen,
I understand, I understand the the desire to you know,
smack him on the ass. I get that part. You know,
as a child, I was dealt with with a certain
level of corporate punishment. Certainly made an impression on me,

(06:24):
and I did spank my children from time to time
on rare occasion. But my son Brian would be happy
to tell you. Ever told you the story of my
son Brian's restaurant theory about the soap color. He used
to routinely act up so much in restaurants that he
would get hauled by me to the men's room, where

(06:46):
i'd swat him on the butt and give him a
lecture about, you know, about behaving and he'd cry a
little bit, and then we'd go out and he was
fine after that. Come to find out that after a
while he had developed a theory because he'd been in
so many restaurant bathrooms about the color of the soap,
and he had what he called the pink soap if
it was if it's pink soap in the bathroom, is

(07:08):
going to be a good meal. If it was white
soap in the bathroom, then you know, fifty to fifty
chances of it being a good meal. And if there's
any other color, then chances are wasn't going to be good.
And helped he developed this theory because he was said
so many times to the bathroom, we'd go to the bathroom.
I said, if you just want to see what color
of the soap is, quit acting up. We'll just go

(07:31):
take a look at what color of the soap is.

Speaker 6 (07:32):
That.

Speaker 2 (07:32):
That's pretty much where the problem ended. I don't know
why he felt like he had to act up to
go to the bathroom. All right, back with more in
a moment Jimmy Birt show here on a M nine
to fifty KPRC. You may have heard about a federal

(08:07):
judge panel ruling against Trump's tariffs, saying that he doesn't
have the authorization to make tariff deals, that that belongs
to Congress, that belongs to the House, not to the
President of the United States, which seems like to me
a bit of a misinterpretation. But okay, another case where

(08:30):
we have a federal judge panel, and by the way,
one of these three judges appointed by Trump, one by
Reagan so he's been there a long time, and one
by Biden. And I'm not sure what the vote was,
I assume it was two to probably two to one.
They decided that President Trump does not have the authorisation

(08:52):
to make tariff deals, at least under the Emergency Act
that he was using in order to make the deals.
So what does that do? Well? Puts all the all
the tariff deals in limbo. I would like to think
at some point in time it will probably go to
the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court will probably rule
in Trump's favor because the executive should have the ability
to make these types of deals, and and and everything

(09:14):
will get squared away. But in the meantime that just
I mean, if you if you're negotiating with Trump, you're going, well,
wait a minute, I guess we don't have to negotiate
after all. That's going to set that whole process back.
And what what has not been talked about, especially in
the mainstream media, is how successful these tariff's deals have

(09:35):
been as far as generating generating revenue. Before this Federal
appeals or this Federal Trade Group whatever they are judges for,
these federal judges made this decision. President Trump was talking
about tariffs and how successful the tariff program is. So
let's take a listen to that and get some reaction

(09:56):
to it.

Speaker 7 (09:57):
They wouldn't be over here today negotiating if I didn't
put a fifty percent tariff on the same thing is
now when I make a deal with them, is something
much more reasonable.

Speaker 2 (10:07):
They'll say, oh, he was chicken. He was chicken. That's
so unbelievable.

Speaker 8 (10:13):
I usually have the.

Speaker 1 (10:14):
Opposite, so they say you're.

Speaker 7 (10:16):
Too tough in the campaign. Yes, I talked to him
so many times about the revenue raising potential of the
baseline tariff. It's kind of a water down form of
the value add attacks that Europe and everybody else in
the world has and we don't have. And you know
it's not twenty, it's not thirty, it's ten.

Speaker 3 (10:37):
Okay, so that's okay.

Speaker 7 (10:38):
Anyway, we're running now on a yearly run rate, a
twelve month run rate of at least two hundred billion dollars,
and it could be more. Dan Clifton tracks this. Joel
of Warne attracks this. But here's the deal. And I
say this for you Diagan in particular. I like the

(10:59):
rev new collections, but they must be tied to lower taxes. Yeah,
that's what I don't want anybody to spend those tariff revenues.

Speaker 1 (11:11):
Jackie way in on money.

Speaker 7 (11:12):
In people's pockets. Lower the tax the brackets, lower the
tax rates.

Speaker 2 (11:17):
Okay, so we're.

Speaker 7 (11:18):
Going to have an art laughter supply side boom. Don't
let him spend.

Speaker 2 (11:22):
It, don't let him spend it. And of course that's
where the big beautiful bill comes in, and we'll get
into that in just a couple of minutes. But I agree.
That's Larry Cudler, by the way, in Fox Business, I
completely agree with him that I'm first of all, I'm
surprised the Democrats did not support tariffs because they have

(11:43):
to see what's going on with the income. If I
were a Democrat and I love to spend taxpayer money
and I could get this kind of additional revenue without
having to raise taxes, I would just want to make
sure that nobody lowered the taxes so that I could
get my hands on more money and spend, because that's
what Democrats like to do. And I agree with Larry

(12:03):
Cudlaw here. If if you, if you really want to
make the case of the American people on these terrafs,
what you do is that you lower their taxes. You
just say, you know, these tarts are bringing in this
additional income. We can give you a rebate, we can
give you less taxes, we can lower your tax rate,
and you'll have nothing but support from the vast majority

(12:23):
of the American people on this all you have to
do is explain to them why these terrorists are so
good for them, and there you go. So, by the way,
that back to that, that that group of three federal
judges who basically said that Trump has does not have

(12:45):
the ability to make these terrorist deals himself. As the
news was breaking last night on Laura Ingram's program on Box,
Senator John Kennedy was her guest, and she asked him
to comment on it.

Speaker 1 (12:58):
You mean that.

Speaker 9 (13:01):
A federal judge has intervened with the other two branches'
ability to make polisve I'm shocked that hasn't happened since yesterday.

Speaker 2 (13:14):
Beyond that, you can't well, in high tax states like
California and New York, where those people are paying a
lot more in state and local taxes than ten grand,
they raised a ruckus. Even Republicans up there because they
have to try to get reelected, so they got a
raise to forty thousand dollars. That doesn't do anything other

(13:35):
than give Democrats a helping hand. I mean, for these
high tax states, these blue states, that's exactly what they want.
So they can keep raising taxes and people won't care
as much because at least they can write it off
on the federal taxes. That's one of the problems that

(13:57):
some of the members of the United States Senate are
having with this bill. Of course, the big problem is
how much the bill costs and how much it could
potentially add to the deficit. Now. I happen to think
that the Trump's tariffs and those types of things help
counteract that stuff, that if we're making more revenue, then

(14:17):
that helps to offset the cost of the bill. But
there's plenty of fat in that bill, as there always
is in every congressional bill. It's far from perfect, But
the question is is it good enough to get through
the United States Senate, And the way it stands right now,
it doesn't look like it is. Senator Ron Johnson is
one of those people who cannot support it in his

(14:38):
present form.

Speaker 3 (14:39):
Like Sender Scott, I support President Trump. You know, we
want to see him succeed. Do you want to see
America succeed? But I ran in twenty ten as part
of the Tea Party movement because we were mortgaging our
children's future. Back then. We experienced our first justice in
excess of a trillion dollars under Obama, but we were
fourteen trillion dollars in debt. Now we're approaching thirty seven

(15:00):
trillion dollars in debt, and as Senator Scott said, over
the next ten years, we'll be approaching sixty trillion in RHEA.
That's a Rosie scenario. The CBO's ten year projections says
it will add twenty two trillion dollars to our federal
Depthsit that assumes taxes automatically increasing, bringing about almost four
trillion thousand revenue. That doesn't happen. Again. You can say

(15:21):
economic growth can replace that, but it's also assuming a
three point three percent interest rate. Over that time period.
You're seeing instrats move up as investors are starting to
look at the United States. It's not particularly a credit worthy.

Speaker 7 (15:34):
Entity.

Speaker 3 (15:35):
So we need to get focused on spending, spending, spending.
I've got a great video on my x page showing
President Trump committing to a balanced budget and members of
his administration saying, we don't have a revenue problem, we
have a spending problem. I end that video with the questions,
so are we willing to fix it? Right now? The
House bill, they're not even scratching the surface, and it's

(15:56):
not even the tip of the iceberg. In terms of
what we need to do to return to a reasonful
pre pandemic level spending. This is unprecedented. What's happened from
twenty nineteen to today. It's a fifty percent increase. Yes,
unprecedented returning to a reasonable pre pandemic baseline. Again, you
just used the metric of what do we spend in
twenty nineteen plus up by population growth and inflation. Use

(16:18):
that numbers as a base, and then ask tough questions,
why are we spending at ten sent more than that?

Speaker 2 (16:24):
Well? I get where he's coming from, I really do.
But by the same token, if they don't get something
done pretty quickly, then it's not gonna the economy is
not going to get the jump start it needs. The
mid term elections will turn out poorly. And if that
is the case, then you know, Trump loses the edge
he has in his ability to get legislation passed. And

(16:47):
we're you know where we were four years ago, or
more than four years ago, eight years ago, you know,
at the beginning of the of the first Trump term,
where Congress didn't act quickly enough, and then things out
off this little start. So there come up with something here,
y'all all right, quick little break. We are back with
morn the moment Jimmy Bard Show here on AM nine

(17:07):
fifty KPRC. All, let's talk a little bit about the
NBNI saw a long form interview. Brett bear has been
doing long form interviews with virtually everybody serving in the

(17:33):
cabinet of the President President Trump, and it was it
was the FBI Director Cash Betel his turn to get
in front of the camera and answer some questions. Now,
he said a couple of weeks ago that he was
going to have all kinds of information coming out. I
didn't hear any of that information really in the interview

(17:57):
that he did, although he is again promising transparency about
a whole variety of different issues. Jeffrey Epstein, I mean,
there's a lot of conspiracy theories out there. They've been
generated by the conduct of the FBI during the Biden
administration and January the sixth. In fact, let's start with
January the sixth. Cash Bettel interviewed by Brett Baar on

(18:19):
Fox talking about Jeffrey Epstein, but before Jeffrey Epstein. Quick
mentioned of Jeffrey Epstein, but before Jeffrey Epstein talking about
January sixth.

Speaker 8 (18:29):
Former FBI Director Chris Ray eventually admitted to Congress there
were twenty six FBI confidential human sources in around the
Capitol of January sixth, but not actual agents. Can you
say that's true?

Speaker 2 (18:43):
Are there more than that?

Speaker 8 (18:44):
What you're learning from that?

Speaker 10 (18:46):
I can say that that is definitely a piece of
the truth. Why it took a ton of time and
questioning in Congress for the director to get that point
is what I'm trying to eliminate from the FBI. If
Congress asked you a question under oath whether or not
there were sources in around January sixth at the Capitol, you,

(19:07):
as the director of the FBI, need to know that
and not deflect and give a DC answer. You have
to be prepared for that. And that's the answer we're giving.
That's the answer Chris Ratio to give them. And eventually
everybody's going to know the whole picture. Yeah, because the
American people deserve that. And look, no one's more frustrated
than me. Remember I was Chief of Staff of the
Department of Defense on January sixth. We said that we

(19:30):
were ready, and the President had previously authorized the National
Guard to be there days in advance. I spent two
years a small fortune grand juries to testify to the truth.
And what happens now years later we were right. Bowser
and Pelosi rejected that offer, and instead of figuring out
how to prevent security lapses like that ever again, the

(19:52):
American public spent tens of millions of dollars and countless
hours on TV listening to conspiracy theories because those in
positions of leadership failed to tell the American public the truth.

Speaker 8 (20:03):
But there is a lot of conspiracy theories out there.
There are the Epstein thing.

Speaker 3 (20:07):
You dealt with Maria.

Speaker 8 (20:08):
You said, as far as you know, he killed himself.
I'm telling you he killed himself. The other thing on
the internet is the Ebstein files. What's the answer to that.

Speaker 10 (20:18):
The answer to that is the same as everything else.
I'm not going to withhold information from the American public ever,
but I'm also not going to rush to get it
out there in a format in which they can't rely
on it. So on the Epstein matter or any other matters,
we are diligently working on that, and it takes time
to go through years of investigations, years of political maneuvering,

(20:42):
in years of cover up to get the American people
what they deserve, and that's what I'm going.

Speaker 1 (20:46):
To give them.

Speaker 2 (20:47):
Okay, So it's gonna take years? Is that what I
got out of that? It's gonna take years? Is it
gonna take years to figure out who left the cocaine
at the White House? When I'm guessing you might already
know the answer to that? Is it good to take
years to figure out, you know, who was there at
January the sixth, what the FBI involvement was, if any,

(21:11):
were they instigators and all this? You know, because the
law of conspiracy theories that indicate that they are. How
long do we wait for that? How many how many
years do we wait for that that? That's a big question.
Is it going to take years to figure out who
leaked the Roe v. Wade decision out of the Supreme
Court before the Supreme Court made that ruling or put

(21:31):
that ruling, made that ruling public. It's going to take
years for all that stuff, That's the question. So I love,
I love the idea that we're going to be transparent,
But until we are completely transparent, I'm skeptical. Yeah, because
everybody goes into this, these these these government jobs, you know,
talking about transparency and we're going, you know, the American

(21:54):
people deserve to know, and then somehow we never find
out it just you know, it goes away over the
course of time. So I'm hoping that's not the case. Again. Yeah,
I'm enough of a cynic that just because it's the
Trump administration and cash Mattel, I don't necessarily one hundred
trust that we're going to get all the information that

(22:16):
we supposedly are entitled to. I hope we do, but
I am skeptical to say the least. All Right, one
other thing to mention to you quickly here here on
our show, and that is this bill signed into law
by Governor Rohn DeSantis. I'm a big time pet lover.

(22:37):
You know, we have a dog, we have four cats.
You know, we spoil our our our pets. We treat
them maybe too much like children. But I'd like to
think we can all agree that we want to end
the abuse of our pets. You know, the people who
don't care for their pets, the people who would abandon
them at their at their hour of need, these helpless, helpless,

(23:01):
important members of your family. Governor Ronda Santrans has signed
a law imposing tough penalties for abandoning pets during disasters.
Hurricane seasons starting up here next week in June, and
it's important, I think, for us to take an example
from this, because we have hurricanes like everybody else. What
prompted this new ruling or this new law in Florida

(23:23):
is a bull terrier found during Hurricane Milton, left chain
to a fence along I seventy five near Tampa. The
state tripper rescued the dog, now named Trooper, hasn't been
adopted by a couple in Broward County, getting spoiled roden
and being loved and cared for. The owner of that
dog was charged with animal cruelty, but under old Florida law,
there wasn't a whole lot of severe penalties that could

(23:46):
take place. Well, that has changed. Starting October, the first
violations taking place during hurricanes or other disasters will be
punishable up to five years in prison and a ten
thousand dollars fine, which seems ever so much more appropriate
than what they had been doing. The other measure that
they passed involved a Saint Petersburg, Florida case involving a

(24:09):
dog named Dexter that was found decapitated at a park
that bill Taking Effect Your Life First, allows for a
range of enhanced penalties in cases of severe animal abuse,
and I couldn't agree more with both of those Bills's
let's make it really painful for people who cause that
kind of pain and cruelty to animals. All right, listen,

(24:31):
you'll have a great day. Thank you for listening. I
will talk to you tomorrow morning, right nearly starting at
five AM over our news radio seven forty KRH. Hope
to see you back here at four on AM nine
fifty KPRC.